Separation of Church and State.

[Mensa]

We often have people on this Board raving about some religious leader or other getting involved in what they consider to be a political matter and, therefore, none of his business. Separation of Church and State is their rally-cry.

Does this cut both ways? Prior to the Winter Olympics, a Mormon who was a traditionalist was arrested, tried, and convicted of bigamy because he practiced polygamy. This was originally condoned by the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-day Saints. When they applied for statehood they were told that the practice was an affront and if they wished to gain statehood, they would have to abandon and abolish it. At the time society was pretty rigid and didn't allow anything like what is tolerated today. But times have changed. There is still a sect of Mormons who practice it. Is it right for the State to dictate what any religion practices? Shouldn't they be as free from State interference as the secular society wants to be free of Church involvement?

Should polygamy and polyandry be allowed if sanctioned by a religion?

 

[Richard49]

Should polygamy and polyandry be allowed if sanctioned by a religion?

The intent of the founding fathers was to not allow any gov approved religion such an England had....a realigion where the state would collect taxs to fund it etc.

They never intented for what we think of as seperation of church & state

Having said that I think they would have allowed Poly marrages

Join the Libertarian Party today "www.lp.org"

 

[SINthysist]

No of course not.

But any good Christian will tell you [TIC on my part, before I get blasted] that it is sinful to have that much fun here on earth. That's not God's plan. We were put here to suffer, it's in Genesis.

So obviously, the Mormans cannot be a religion...

 

[xMorganx]

Should polygamy and polyandry be allowed if sanctioned by a religion?

In the case of the mormans they also outlawed polygamy because the practice was outdated according to church leaders, and some felt it was discouraging members into the Morman church.
So to anwser your question yes, if it complies with the laws of the state or country. but if it is outlawed by either the religon the state (etc.) then no. I know of no religon off the top of my head that still encourages or allows polygamious marriages of it's followers.

 

[rexfelis]

I say:

To each their own. If we can allow what passes for religion these days in so many other ways, we can certainly allow for each person to have it their own way.

 

[Richard49]

Re: Re: Separation of Church and State.

In the case of the mormans they also outlawed polygamy because the practice was outdated according to church leaders, and some felt it was discouraging members into the Morman church.
So to anwser your question yes, if it complies with the laws of the state or country. but if it is outlawed by either the religon the state (etc.) then no. I know of no religon off the top of my head that still encourages or allows polygamious marriages of it's followers.

Excuse me but if you check the history books you will find the 2 reasons they outlawed it were
1) they were quility of a masscare and the Feds threaten them
2) they wanted statehood and to get it they had to outlaw poly

 

[freescorfr]

The state should interfere as little as possible in people's private decisions. If, however, there is a threat to the civil functioning of society the state has a duty to intervene. Polygamy, freely undertaken by all partners can work in some socities, especially where infant mortality is very high.

Polyandry is ok when its very cold, you're up mountains and the fellas only have enough puff, after hunting, to do it once a month. A girl needs a few brothers in such circumstances.
The British, because of their plummetting sperm count might be advised to consider it.

Most laws are the results of self-organising systems and both religion and the state have, historicaly, performed similar functions in devising regulations which, overall, benefit their adherents or citizens.

 

[Mensa]

Re: Re: Separation of Church and State.

In the case of the mormans they also outlawed polygamy because the practice was outdated according to church leaders, and some felt it was discouraging members into the Morman church.
So to anwser your question yes, if it complies with the laws of the state or country. but if it is outlawed by either the religon the state (etc.) then no. I know of no religon off the top of my head that still encourages or allows polygamious marriages of it's followers.

The U.S. military was sent into the territory as an occupation force and compelled the Mormon leaders to reject polygamy if they ever hoped to become a state. Intimidation, pure and simple.

As to a religion that still allows polygamy, try Islam. It's not practiced widespread but is still allowed. There are other minor sects around the globe that still practice either polygamy or polyandry.

 

[Mensa]

No of course not.

But any good Christian will tell you [TIC on my part, before I get blasted] that it is sinful to have that much fun here on earth. That's not God's plan. We were put here to suffer, it's in Genesis.

Try telling that to King Solomon.

 

[Starfish]

No of course not.

But any good Christian will tell you [TIC on my part, before I get blasted] that it is sinful to have that much fun here on earth. That's not God's plan. We were put here to suffer, it's in Genesis.

So obviously, the Mormans cannot be a religion...

Call me dumb, but what is TIC?

I am growing very fond of you AJ, but I disagree that any one would. Most, yes, but not just any...

I am a good Christian, and I say God loves us, and wants us to enjoy life as the gift that it was given as.

That is the only truth about it.

However, the principle of the matter of multiple marriages is more about functionality than sexual gratification for men.

Don't get me wrong, I see that you are being sarcastic about the Bible's true value as the word of God, and that you may even not feel it is just about sex. I just wouldn't tell you that life is for suffering.

Therefore, on the subject of the matter, I feel that if you enjoy having a fruitful family, and you enjoy the benefits of having help to do work and get what needs done, accomplished, then polygamy has it's massive bonuses.

If you enjoy doing a favor to people (those who you have join your family) who don't have the opportunity to live well, a better chance to live well in a polygamous family setting that aids them in God's love, not an abomination of that love... via misplaced concepts of "ownership" of others, and other abuses to the concept, then it is a wonderful thing, then it is not an invalid option for a lifestyle, in my mind. I wouldn't mind sharing my husband. It would be fine if it were for procreative purposes only, unless it were a group sex sort of hedonistic event, that I believe God is okay with, even if it is frowned upon by many other Christians. It would bring my household female companionship, and the work would be done easier for all, but that for my family would probably all keel over. That is just not the setting I was raised in. However, it would be easy for me to have it masked over, because my folks and in-laws know what a hippy I am, that that kind of thing would be more of a commune type setting in their minds, if we were to do it.

The only thing about it is, we don't need to produce huge families to keep our species going so it seems archaic to most. That is okay, but look at the functionality of a single family unit. It is sometimes overwhelming for a woman to work and deal with the household (in your case you do it, yes) because their men won't do the work. What are they to do? And the companionship factor to boot. Many Mothers are lonely and need other women around them.

That is why I feel that it is something that should not be condemned or abolished by the Federal government.

Each Man and Woman has their own needs and they must be met for people to be fruitfull... Jesus tells us to be fruitful.

I doubt he meant just in numbers of our species, but in that which we choose to create, and do....

Make it all good...

 

[Calamity Jane]

couldn't both the church and the state be satisfied by having a church wedding... without the legal marriage? You'd be missing out on the ability to cover the 'extra' spouse on insurance, etc... but I doubt many insurance agencies are going to cover multiple spouses anyway.

I'm not sure how I feel about the whole 'church and state' issue. We're not guaranteed that the church won't muddle with the government, or vice versa (which is pretty obvious lately)... we're only supposed to be guaranteed that the government won't tell us we have to belong to a certain religion in order to be citizens...

Allowing legally recognized multiple partner marriages, based simply on religious desires, IMO opens up a whole can of worms for others to demand that their religion be granted the same legal loopholes with other practices.

 

[bored1]

I have no problem with the Mormans marrying as many as they can since its their religion,or was their religion.By what right does the govt have to deny them their choice?.Personally I was always offended by Clintons photo ops as he walked out of church with a bible stuffed under his arm. What a fraud

 

[Mellon Collie]

Should polygamy and polyandry be allowed if sanctioned by a religion?

If it could become organized in a way that would not interrupt or conflict with existing laws or doctrines [other than the ones against it] and would not wreak havoc during tax season then I see nothing wrong with it.

 

[Mensa]

couldn't both the church and the state be satisfied by having a church wedding... without the legal marriage? You'd be missing out on the ability to cover the 'extra' spouse on insurance, etc... but I doubt many insurance agencies are going to cover multiple spouses anyway.

I'm not sure how I feel about the whole 'church and state' issue. We're not guaranteed that the church won't muddle with the government, or vice versa (which is pretty obvious lately)... we're only supposed to be guaranteed that the government won't tell us we have to belong to a certain religion in order to be citizens...

Allowing legally recognized multiple partner marriages, based simply on religious desires, IMO opens up a whole can of worms for others to demand that their religion be granted the same legal loopholes with other practices.

As long as you are willing to pay their premiums, insurance companies will cover anything.

The ACLU goes ballistic at anything faintly oderiferous of religion being practiced in a public arena. Separation has come to be more malignant than that.

What's wrong with opening that can?

 

[KillerMuffin]

Good point.

Disclaimer: I WILL NOT JOIN THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY AND I AM NOT A LIBERTARIAN NO MATTER WHAT YOU THINK OR WHAT RHETORIC YOU SPIT

I don't think the government has a place in religious or familial decisions. As long as the rights of the children are respected then what two consenting adults do is none of the business of the government.

The fact is that our government and policies are overwhelmingly Christian. Christians have dominated governmental roles since the government was formed. "In God We Trust" is on our money.

Christians who started this government were never once concerned with the government interfering with non-Christian religions because they did not accept non-Christian religions as religions. They just didn't want the government to interfere with their religion. Anything that didn't resemble their religion wasn't really a religion and therefore the government could step in.

A lot of governmental policies are based solely on the Christian religion. Marriage, what constitutes immorality, and before the 70s roles women play in society.

You can't separate a man from his faith and people are what run the government. These people will bring their faith with them and will follow it while expediting government. The problem is when religious issues become governmental issues.

http://www.thenewrepublic.com/archive/08/081197/talbot081197.html

You might find this interesting. Was the father right or wrong? Was the government right or wrong? Where does right of religion end and the right of government begin?

 

[Mensa]

Re: Re: Separation of Church and State.

If it could become organized in a way that would not interrupt or conflict with existing laws or doctrines [other than the ones against it] and would not wreak havoc during tax season then I see nothing wrong with it.

That's the point, polygamy and polyandry do conflict with existing laws. But should the State be allowed to pass law that restrict religious practices? Isn't that State interference in Church affairs?

 

[Calamity Jane]

As long as you are willing to pay their premiums, insurance companies will cover anything.

Not necessarily. My sister is in a lesbian relationship. It's only been recently that she was recognized as a domestic partner, and therefore eligible to be covered on her partner's health insurance. The requirements (at least in this state) to be considered a domestic partner are fairly strict, and not all that easy for everyone to meet. Techinically, if the marriage in the case you're talking about wasn't legally recognized, then most insurance companies wouldn't be compelled to cover the spouse.

The ACLU goes ballistic at anything faintly oderiferous of religion being practiced in a public arena. Separation has come to be more malignant than that.

I think we've all gone a little overboard demanding the seperation in all cases. As KM said, religion is part of who a person is, so of course, they're going to take that bit of themselves into every situation. I, personally, am not offended to see the Ten Commandments displayed in public (just an example, there are others). Whether I agree that they're the 'Inspired Word of God or not, doesn't change the fact that they're pretty good rules to live by. I'm more offended by those who demand the removal based on a feeling that they're saving me from being offended. I believe that violates free speech.

What's wrong with opening that can?



There's nothing 'wrong' with it, and I didn't mean to imply that there was. I honestly believe that as long as no one is being injured, and no one is engaging in 'religious practices' in order to defraud anyone, then people should be pretty much left alone to live their lives. I was simply saying that the argument doesn't begin and end with polygamy.

 

[RhumbRunner13]

Church and State Rights.

Regardless of how you couch it, Mormons abandon the practice of polygamy and denounced its diehard followers.

Not every religious practice is or should be allowed under the Constitution. Human sacrifice would be an example, and the argument that it was part of your "Right to practice your faith under the First amendment" would be laughed out of every court up to and including the Supreme Court.

RhumbRunner

 

[Mellon Collie]

Re: Re: Re: Separation of Church and State.

That's the point, polygamy and polyandry do conflict with existing laws. But should the State be allowed to pass law that restrict religious practices? Isn't that State interference in Church affairs?

I think the state should be able to restrict what's done on behalf of religion to a point. If they didn't we'd have religious zealots running a muck. The last thing we need is some freak with the fear of God (hell, maybe said freak thinks he is god) in him doing whatever he pleases in the name of religion.

I think the idea which America says it employs now (that you may do whatever it is your religion decrees as long it doesn't inflict on another person's freedoms) is a pretty good way to handle the separation of church and state.

 

[Mensa]

Re: Church and State Rights.

Regardless of how you couch it, Mormons abandon the practice of polygamy and denounced its diehard followers.

Not every religious practice is or should be allowed under the Constitution. Human sacrifice would be an example, and the argument that it was part of your "Right to practice your faith under the First amendment" would be laughed out of every court up to and including the Supreme Court.

RhumbRunner

But isn't the court an organ of the State? It interprets and enforces State-passed laws. Theoretically, this, too, is State interference in Church affairs.

Human sacrifice is rather far removed from polygamy and polyandry.

 

[Calamity Jane]

Re: Re: Church and State Rights.

But isn't the court an organ of the State? It interprets and enforces State-passed laws. Theoretically, this, too, is State interference in Church affairs.

Human sacrifice is rather far removed from polygamy and polyandry.

I also can't think of a single religion who holds human sacrifice as a valid form of religious expression. However, I see your point. It's kind of like peyote use being made illegal on Indian Reservations. It takes away a very integral part of their spirituality.

Here's a question... are we talking about polygamy being made legal for everyone? Or just for Mormons? I would have a problem with it only being legal for those who engage in it because of religious reasons.

How many churches complain about government interference when they're using their tax exempt status?

 

[freescorfr]

Re: Re: Re: Church and State Rights.

I also can't think of a single religion who holds human sacrifice as a valid form of religious expression. However, I see your point. It's kind of like peyote use being made illegal on Indian Reservations. It takes away a very integral part of their spirituality.

There have been a couple of sacrificail killings of children in London this year, Pagan.

 

[Mensa]

Re: Re: Re: Church and State Rights.

I also can't think of a single religion who holds human sacrifice as a valid form of religious expression. However, I see your point. It's kind of like peyote use being made illegal on Indian Reservations. It takes away a very integral part of their spirituality.

Here's a question... are we talking about polygamy being made legal for everyone? Or just for Mormons? I would have a problem with it only being legal for those who engage in it because of religious reasons.

How many churches complain about government interference when they're using their tax exempt status?

Polygamy and polyandry for any religion embracing the concept.

If Churches paid taxes, wouldn't they, then, have a say in how their tax dollars are spent. The same as any other taxpayer. Be glad they don't pay them if you believe is such a separation.

 

[RhumbRunner13]

Re:

"Cases have recently considered whether, and by what means, a state can prohibit such practices. In 1983, Gary Francione litigated the first case that raised the question whether Santeria animal sacrifice was protected by the free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The New York courts, in the case entitled First Church of Chango v. American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; 134 A.D.2d 971, 521 N.Y.S.2d 356 (Ist Dep't 1987), affirmed, 70 N.Y.2d 616, 521 N.E.2d 443 (1988), ruled that animal sacrifices were not so protected, and could be prohibited under the New York State anti-cruelty law, that is a neutral, generally applicable statute."

The First amendment is not an absolute privilege to do whatever you desire as your definition of religion. Polygamy is recognized as a destructive influence to many if not most societies and is therefore a forbidden practice even within the couched confines of "religious freedom."

RhumbRunner

 

[Calamity Jane]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Church and State Rights.

Polygamy and polyandry for any religion embracing the concept.

If Churches paid taxes, wouldn't they, then, have a say in how their tax dollars are spent. The same as any other taxpayer. Be glad they don't pay them if you believe is such a separation.

Yes, and it's rather a double edged sword.

The problem is, the government has to recognize your religion as valid in order for tax exempt status to apply... so they have to lobby to the very government they want exemption from in order to be given that exemption...

It's a pretty messed up system, and I don't know of any easy fix for it.

There have been a couple of sacrificail killings of children in London this year, Pagan.

What 'religion' was used as the motivator for the 'sacrifices'?